David Miliband: The results of the Indian elections represent a resounding reaffirmation of the health of the world's largest democracy. The Congress party and its allies now have a strong mandate and India has the prospect of another five years of stable, progressive Government. This is a particular tribute to the work of Prime Minister Singh, Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi. We look forward to continuing to work closely with the new Indian Government to address the many urgent global and regional challenges we face.

David Miliband: We have been discussing all options for the delivery of funding to Sri Lanka. It is important to say that until now the focus has been on humanitarian help, for reasons that I imagine the right hon. Gentleman will understand.
	When it comes to reconstruction, a wide range of funds will be delivered to Sri Lanka. The country has a bid in for International Monetary Fund funding and there has been discussion in this House over the past two months about the appropriateness of such funding, but I assure him that nothing has been ruled out. The crucial issues for us will be: first, to ensure that there is genuine international support; secondly, to ensure that the money reaches the right people; and thirdly, and obviously, to ensure that it is properly meshed with the arrangements being made by the Government of Sri Lanka. One particular on which work is under way is on demining, because the areas that have been "cleared" and now need to be repopulated include those that had a lot of mines laid by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam—the LTTE. That is a particular issue where I know that there is a need for help and we want to ensure that it reaches the right place.

Bill Rammell: We have been at the forefront of the case for sanctions against the Burmese regime. We recently saw the rollover of EU sanctions. The recent actions have been reprehensible—the Prime Minister led the way internationally last week in condemning them—and the re-arrest last week suggests that the Burmese regime were intent on finding any pretext, no matter how tenuous, to extend Aung San Suu Kyi's unlawful detention. While thousands of political prisoners are still locked up in jail, including Aung San Suu Kyi, there cannot be credible elections in Burma next year.

John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the debate yesterday, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) told the House that my constituents could complain about the closure of emergency heart facilities in Ipswich through the consultation process and the intervention of the health strategy committee of the county council. He failed to tell the House that the strategic health authority had refused any consultation whatever, that the county council is debarred from intervening by the purdah period under electoral law and that the strategic health authority has chosen this moment to push through a very damaging decision without any kind of disclosure. Would you please ask—

Commission for the Compact

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 2— Destruction of samples etc: service offences
	'(1) Section 113 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (application to armed forces) is amended as follows—
	(2) After subsection (1) insert—
	"(1A) After a person is released without charge or acquitted of the offence for which a sample has been taken that sample shall be destroyed within one month of the fingerprints or sample being taken or the person being acquitted, unless the offence was of a violent or sexual nature.
	(2) If the offence was of a violent or sexual nature that sample must be held for a period of three years, after which it must be destroyed."'.
	New clause 3— Destruction of samples etc (Northern Ireland)
	'(1) That Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/3141 (N.I 12)) is amended as follows—
	(2) After Article 64A insert—
	"Destruction of samples etc
	"(1) After a person is not charged or acquitted of the offence for which a sample has been taken that sample shall be destroyed within one month of the fingerprints or samples being taken or the person being acquitted, unless the offence was of a violent or sexual nature.
	(2) If the offence was of a violent or sexual nature that sample should be held for a period of three years, and then be destroyed.
	(3) This section applies to the following material—
	(a) photographs falling within a description specified in the regulations,
	(b) fingerprints taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence,
	(c) impressions of footwear so taken from a person,
	(d) DNA and other samples so taken from a person,
	(e) information derived from DNA samples so taken from a person.
	(4) For the purposes of this section—
	(a) "photograph" includes a moving image, and
	(b) the reference to a DNA sample is a reference to any material that has come from a human body and consists of or includes human cells."'.
	New clause 31— Retention of voluntary samples etc.
	'(1) That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 64(1A)(b) insert—
	"(c) any other provision in this Part does not prohibit or restrict their retention or require their destruction.".
	(3) For section 64(3AC) substitute—
	"3AC Retention of voluntary samples etc.
	Where a person from whom a fingerprint, impression of footwear or sample has been taken consents in writing to its retention—
	(a) that sample need not be destroyed under subsection (3) above;
	(b) subsection (3AB) above shall not restrict the use that may be made of the sample or of any information derived from it; and
	(c) that consent shall be treated as comprising a consent for the purposes of section 63A(1C) above;
	provided that—
	(1) No sample or information derived from any sample may be retained on any child under the age of 10 years; and
	(2) Consent given for the purposes of this subsection shall be capable of being withdrawn by such person upon making written application to the responsible chief officer of police or person authorised by the Secretary of State for such purpose whereupon such sample and any information derived therefrom shall be destroyed as soon as possible following receipt of such written application."'.
	New clause 32— Retention of samples following arrest
	'(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60) is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 64A insert—
	"64B Retention of samples
	(1) Subject to subsection (2), where a sample has been taken from a person under this Part, unless such a person has been given consent in accordance with section 64(3AC), all such samples and all information derived from such samples shall be destroyed as soon as possible following a decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the person or on the conclusion of such proceedings otherwise than with a conviction.
	(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply—
	(a) where the record, sample or information in question is of the same kind as a record, a sample or, as the case may be, information lawfully held in relation to the person; or
	(b) where the person is cautioned for a recordable offence or given a warning or reprimand in accordance with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for a recordable offence in connection with the decision not to institute criminal proceedings or following the withdrawal or cessation of criminal proceedings; or
	(c) where sections 64C or 64D apply.
	(3) For the purposes of this section, criminal proceedings shall not be deemed to have concluded until the earlier of the (1) the lapse of any applicable appeal period and (2) a decision is made not to appeal such proceedings.
	64C Retention of samples etc (violent and sexual offences)
	(1) This section applies where any sample has been taken from a person under this Part where criminal proceedings were instituted against such person in respect of a sexual offence or violent offence and such proceedings concluded otherwise than with a conviction or with the person being cautioned for a recordable offence or given a warning or reprimand in accordance with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for a recordable offence.
	(2) Subject to subsections (6) and (7) below, the sample and any information derived therefrom shall be destroyed no later than:
	(a) 3 years following the conclusion of the proceedings ("the initial retention date"); or
	(b) such later date as may be ordered under subsection (3).
	(3) On application made by a chief officer of police within the period of 3 months before the initial retention date, the Crown Court, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so, may make an order amending, or further amending, the date of destruction of the relevant sample and any information derived therefrom.
	(4) An order under subsection (3) shall not specify a date more than 2 years later than the initial retention date.
	(5) Any decisions of the Crown Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeal within 21 days of such decision.
	(6) Subsection (2) does not apply where—
	(a) an application under subsection (3) above has been made but has not been determined.
	(b) the period within which an appeal may be brought under subsection (5) above against a decision to refuse an application has not elapsed; or
	(c) such an appeal has been brought but has not been withdrawn or finally determined.
	(7) Where—
	(a) the period within which an appeal referred to in subsection (5) has elapsed without such an appeal being brought; or
	(b) such an appeal is brought and is withdrawn or finally determined without any extension of the time period referred to in subsection (2),
	the sample and any information derived therefrom shall be destroyed as soon as possible thereafter.
	(8) For the purposes of this Part a "sexual offence" or "violent offence" shall mean such offences of a violent or sexual nature as shall be set out in any order made by the Secretary of State with reference to this section.
	64D Retention of Samples - Residual Power
	(1) On application by a chief officer of police, the Crown Court may make an order requiring the retention of a sample taken from a person and any information derived therefrom in circumstances where such a sample and any information derived therefrom would otherwise be required to be destroyed if it has reasonable grounds to believe that:
	(a) there is a serious risk of harm to the public or a section of the public; and
	(b) such retention would prevent, inhibit, restrict or disrupt involvement by the person in the commission of a sexual offence or violent offence.
	(2) An order under this section is not to be in force for more than 5 years beginning with the date of the commencement of the order.
	(3) Any decision of the Crown Court may be appealed to the Court of Appeal within 21 days of such decision.
	(4) Where an application has been made for an order under this section, the relevant sample and any information derived therefrom shall not be destroyed until such application and any appeal thereof has been determined.
	(3) At end of section 113(1) insert—
	"provided always that the protections in Part 5 relating to the retention of samples and any information derived therefrom shall also be applied to persons investigated or under arrest under such Acts.".'.
	Amendment 28, page 116, line 16, leave out Clause 95.
	Government amendment 112.
	Amendment 29, page 117, line 32, leave out Clause 96.
	Amendment 30, page 118, line 3, leave out Clause 97.
	Government amendment 113.

Christopher Huhne: These new clauses and amendments address the issue of the retention of fingerprints and other DNA samples stored on the police national database, and seek to fulfil two purposes. Amendments 28 to 30 would seek to remove clauses 95 to 97. New clauses 1 to 3 then replace the current rules on the retention of DNA samples with our preferred alternative. We believe that this is both legal in the eyes of the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, and puts liberty, respect for a private life, and the presumption of innocence at the heart of the rules.
	The UK has the largest DNA database in the world; it is far larger than its American equivalent. It contains records from more than 4 million British citizens; 1 million of those people have no record on the police national computer, and 1 million were added as children. Almost one in two of all black men are on the database. This has been not so much a policy—that would have entailed some systematic attempt to collect DNA—but a random accretion of profiles from anybody who happens to run into the police.
	On 4 December last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the retention of the DNA samples of two men—S and Marper—was illegal, and that it violated their right to a private life. The ruling stated that the judges were
	"struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales".
	They ruled that
	"the retention in question constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society".
	That is a damning indictment of the Government's policy on DNA retention, and serves to highlight the Government's dangerous and illegal obsession with massive, Big Brother-style databases, whether for DNA, e-mails and phone calls, or biometric data collected for ID cards. A report by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust concluded that out of 46 databases examined, one quarter were almost certainly illegal, as the existing DNA database has been found to be, and fewer than 15 per cent. of those assessed were effective, proportionate or necessary.
	The effectiveness of this random accretion in the DNA database is itself highly questionable. Figures have shown that despite the huge increase in the number of profiles on the database—from 2.1 million in 2002 to 5.6 million at the last count—the number of detected crimes in which a DNA match was available has fallen from 21,098 to 17,614 last year. Ministers have failed to produce any respectable peer-reviewed research that supports their case for this random increase in the collection of DNA samples and profiles—indeed, size is, in itself, problematic, as it makes the data more unwieldy in finding matches. Ministers like to say that DNA is essential in detecting crime, and of course it is, but the most significant application of DNA testing is when DNA is found at the scene of a crime and can then be matched with a suspect. That process will continue, and it should do, but what should not continue is the topsy growth for no reason in the number of samples and profiles added to the database.
	Given the weight of evidence in favour of reform of the DNA database, the Government have signally failed to justify their current proposals. I am forced to conclude that Ministers are putting forward what they believe to be the absolute minimum that they can get away with before the European Court, while hoping that campaigners will not mount any further legal challenges. I think that Ministers will be proved wrong; to hold records for six years on people charged with or convicted of no crime, and to hold them for 12 years on those arrested for serious offences, makes a mockery of the presumption of innocence that has been fundamental to our law for centuries. There is no evidence that such a lengthy retention period is proportionate, necessary or effective.
	Despite the extremely sensitive nature of these issues, the Government are essentially asking us to defer all serious decisions to statutory instruments that will be introduced at a later stage—there would then be no requirement even for a debate on the Floor of the House. The House backs far too many, "I'm a Minister, trust me" clauses in any case, but it should certainly not accept their use in this important matter—to do so would frankly be an outrage. This is an issue of national significance and national debate that potentially affects the human rights of millions of people, and it should be addressed only through primary legislation. Ministers will say that time was pressing, consultation periods are long and that what they propose is the only practical way of dealing with the issue, but that is nonsense. We have a precedent for a tailor-made, one-purpose Bill in respect of the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008, which was also drafted in response to a court judgment and commanded support from all parts of the House.
	The Government should not be allowed to get away with passing legislation that has not been subject to proper scrutiny in this House—we heard in the programme motion debate how little scrutiny the Bill received in Committee. Their manoeuvring with consultations and the use of secondary legislation is simply unacceptable, given the seriousness of the issue. We, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, along with Members from all parts of the House, have signed amendments to remove the DNA provisions from the Bill and we will certainly push them to a vote.
	Let me turn to our proposed alternative. We propose a similar system to that which has worked so well in Scotland. When we were in coalition in the Executive in Scotland, my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Scottish Parliament led the charge to introduce less Orwellian rules for Scotland than those currently in place in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Scottish provision allows that any samples and profiles taken, voluntarily or otherwise, from somebody who is subsequently released without charge or acquitted of an offence should be destroyed within one month. However, if an offence was of a violent or sexual nature, a sample can be held for up to three years—we propose that the same period apply
	There is a legitimate debate to be had over the length of time that retention is acceptable in the cases of those arrested for serious violent or sexual offences. The Government propose to set this limit at 12 years, whereas the Scottish system sets it at three years, as in our new clauses, but allows for a possible two-year extension. The Conservatives' proposals are similar, but we part company with the official Opposition where they allow for a blanket application to retain samples and profiles for up to five years after an arrest for any offence because we believe that to be disproportionate and to depart from the spirit of the Scottish legislation.
	To my mind, the Government's proposals—and, I am afraid to say, those of the Conservatives—do not get the balance right between liberty and the prevention and detection of crime. If there was evidence that the retention of samples for five years or 12 years was significantly more effective in preventing or detecting future crimes, there would be a case to be weighed in the balance, but we have not heard that case from the Government. It is my belief that we should err on the side of the tried and tested principles of British justice, respected as they are and will continue to be north of the border. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our judicial system and must be protected. Our provisions would adequately roll back these intrusive and illiberal powers, while recognising that DNA is an important crime fighting tool and that the taking of samples during investigations must continue. Our proposals get the balance right, and I commend them to the House.

Keith Vaz: I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman's concern. A particular incident could lead to DNA being retained. The House knows very well the circumstances relating to the hon. Member for Ashford, and the Select Committee recently published a report about them, although it did not mention the hon. Gentleman's DNA. However, the fact is that his DNA was taken and there would be no prospect of its being removed for six years under the Government's proposals, unless we were to make an exception for Members of the House, and in the current climate we should never be in a position to make exceptions for hon. Members. But why retain that DNA?
	We know that the DNA of a disproportionate number of black and Asian people is held on the database, because if a disproportionate number of black and Asian people are stopped and searched under stop-and-search legislation there will be more DNA from people from the black and Asian community. Their DNA, too, is retained on the database. Why do the Government say that their DNA should be retained for six years or even longer because they were stopped under stop-and-search powers? There is a fundamental flaw in the Government's argument: either it is okay for everybody or it is okay only for people who have committed criminal offences.
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh did not deal with the possibility of loss of data, although I am sure he would have done so if he had had the time he sought under the programme motion. Although the situation is better, unfortunately the Government were afflicted by loss of data for a period last year. I do not just blame the present Government—any Government who sought to retain so much data would be affected. The more data the Government possess, the greater the likelihood that the data will be lost, so why hold information if nothing is being done with it?
	Ministers must address those issues if we are being serious the subject. It is not that those who say that a limit is needed are against catching criminals. Of course we want to catch criminals, and we want to use everything in our power—every piece of new technology—to achieve that.
	The professor of genetics who invented the way in which DNA is extracted and retained is Alec Jeffreys of the University of Leicester—one of our most eminent citizens, recently given the freedom of the city of Leicester—and he is on record as saying that he does not understand why the Government have made these proposals. He has talked about other ways in which such things can be used to aid the police and other authorities, without the retention. If our arguments are dismissed because we are not experts, I hope that the Government will listen to the expertise of none other than Sir Alec Jeffreys, who says that the Government are wrong on the issue. I know how fond Governments are of relying on experts, so the Government should take it from Alec Jeffreys, if not from us, that they need to think again.
	As the Bill is going through Parliament, the view is, "Let's just stick it in the Bill, because we don't know when the next one is coming out." We have had 66 such Bills, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh said—quite a lot of Bills—and we have had almost as many immigration Bills. We need to think carefully before we adopt something that is a knee-jerk reaction, and we should not have a knee-jerk reaction, because we have known about this for seven months, so there is every reason for people to have thought about it very carefully. I hope that Ministers will reflect on the proposal before they push it through the House. I have every sympathy for the Liberal Democrat suggestion, and I hope that the Minister can reassure us that sufficient safeguards are in place.
	One of the best safeguards is that, when people write in, they receive replies. In the case of the hon. Gentleman whom I mentioned, he has not had the decency of a reply from the chief constable. At the very least, there should be a robust process of challenging. It should not be exceptional; there should be a reasonable way in which people can challenge the retention. I wrote about my constituent, and I received a very flimsy reply from the custody sergeant. I expect more and better from a Government who are keen to ensure that our liberties are protected.

Andrew Dismore: The problem with the right hon. Gentleman's contention is that the process is likely to bring the law into disrepute. Injunctions against those under 18 are unenforceable. According to the response that we received from the Government today,
	"Injunctions must be enforceable and it is unlikely in practice that these injunctions would be enforceable for under 18s because the court cannot fine someone without a source of income."
	The Government also refer to the penalties for those over 18, which could involve fines or imprisonment. They say:
	"a court cannot sentence an individual under the age of 18 to detention...for a civil contempt of court. Therefore where when a gang member is under 18 and is without an independent and legitimate source of income, the court would be unable to sanction any breach and so would not grant an injunction."
	That constitutes a paper tiger. That is why we have ASBOs.
	The Government go on to say:
	"there may be occasions where it would be both appropriate and enforceable",
	and that
	"whilst these instances are likely to be rare",
	they want to retain their provisions in the Bill. However, we have not been given an example of where those provisions would be enforceable. If injunctions cannot be enforced, or are refused because they cannot be enforced, there is no point in having the power in the first place. It will simply bring the law into disrepute.
	The other issue that concerns us particularly, as is reflected in amendment 40, is that of the applicable standards of due process. Breach of an injunction is a civil offence which is treated as civil contempt of court, but must be proved to the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". In the leading ASBO case, although ASBOs were considered to be civil orders—like injunctions—the House of Lords upheld the argument that the proceedings relating to ASBOs should carry the criminal standard of proof. Magistrates should apply that standard: they must be sure that the individual in question acted in an antisocial manner before they can make the order. We believe that similar standards should apply to injunctions which are very akin to ASBOs.
	The analogy with ASBOs is particularly acute given the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Shafi case, which recognised that ASBOs in identical terms could be sought. Some of the proposed injunctions are identical to or more severe than ASBOs, which require proof on the criminal standard. If they are to be more demanding than an ASBO, the argument that they should require the criminal standard of proof is all the stronger.

David Davies: The hon. Gentleman must have seen in his surgeries, as I have, numerous people who have been victims of antisocial behaviour on the part of gangs, collections of young people, or whatever we want to call them. Why is he trying to make it difficult to enforce order and peace for the benefit of the law-abiding community?

Alan Campbell: First, I want to deal with the matter of encryption keys. New clause 22 and amendment 119 are together intended to have the same effect as new clause 7, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). I want to place on record our gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in this area and for the way in which he has pursued this point.
	New clause 22 and amendment 119 relate to the maximum sentences that can be imposed when people fail to comply with a notice relating to encrypted information issued under part 3 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Specifically, the amendments raise the maximum sentence on indictment from two years' to five years' imprisonment in child indecency cases. At present, the sentence in such cases is limited to two years. Given that sentences for child indecency offences can be far higher, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley has pointed out, we are proposing to raise the sentence for failing to comply with a notice to five years. In addition, the amendments allow individuals convicted of failing to comply with a notice or tipping off in connection with such a notice to be made subject, in appropriate cases, to a sexual offences prevention order under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
	We have adopted a slightly different approach to that proposed by the hon. Gentleman, because of the technical problems with the drafting of his new clause. We have also not included all the offences that were in new clause 7. That is not because they are not important offences, but rather because—in so far as they involve indecent images of children—they would be redundant. In other words, when they do not involve such images, the offences that we have included are the relevant offences so the higher sentence should be available anyway.
	Our amendments will also make high sentences available in relation to specified offences in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and I should clarify that the Scottish Executive have welcomed those provisions. I want to conclude this section of my speech by repeating my thanks to the hon. Member for Mole Valley. I know that his efforts have been appreciated by members of the law enforcement community, particularly the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. I hope that he will feel that there is no need to press his new clause and that he and all hon. Members will be able to support new clause 22 and amendment 119.

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend will know that I have tabled amendments designed to address that problem, which relates to the point about enforceability made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). I hope that my right hon. Friend will be reassured by a meeting that I had just a few days ago with Tim Brain, the lead for the Association of Chief Police Officers on prostitution and sex crimes, who feels that, having studied it more carefully, the offence is enforceable, even in its initial wording. However, I have tabled my amendments as a result of speaking to lawyers who work in the magistrates courts and who believe that the phrase
	"of a kind likely to induce or encourage"
	will provide another means to argue about whether an offence has taken place. We want a strict liability offence to operate in magistrates courts, but the complicating factor created by that phrase will make such offences harder to prosecute successfully.

John Gummer: It is likely that the Suffolk Coastal district council would not have need for any of these applications, but I commend the Government for their way at looking at these things. I wish they would extend that to many other topics, but in this case I hope the Minister will rebuff those who want to be more universal. His position would be accepted and welcomed.

Lynne Jones: Is not the largest barriers to sex workers leaving the industry the stigma that is associated with prostitution? In what way will the legislation going through the House today help to remove that stigma?

Fiona Mactaggart: Given that so many hon. Members wish to speak, I aim to be brief. I want to speak about amendment (a) to amendment 47, amendment (a) to amendment 51 and amendments 215 and 216. Some are amendments to the amendments that the Home Secretary tabled to clause 13.
	Earlier, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) reminded us of what, for many of us, is the trigger for the debate: the violence, which is inherent in prostitution, and the cause of the fact that prostituted women are, according to the  British Medical Journal, 40 times as likely to die a violent death as other women.
	The Government's proposal for a strict liability offence, which targets demand for prostitution, is based on clear evidence from other European countries that such an offence can reduce trafficking and also the demand for prostitution. For example, in Sweden, the number of men who pay for sex has reduced in the time that that country has had a stricter but comparable offence, from 13.6 per cent. to below 8 per cent. On the whole, that 8 per cent. pays for sex outside Sweden. Other Nordic countries have followed Sweden, including Norway. Despite being so much smaller than Sweden, it had a massively larger population of women who were trafficked for sexual purposes. Norway perceived that as a serious human rights problem, which it had to address. Finland has a slightly half-hearted version of the offence, with few prosecutions, although more have begun to be conducted.
	Countries that have taken the opposite approach, such as the Netherlands, regret it and have experienced the growth of criminality and abuse that is inherent in prostitution.
	It is also important to realise that public opinion on the issue can follow leadership. The Swedish law has become more popular since it was introduced. When the Minister for Women and Equality commissioned research in the United Kingdom into whether people thought it right to make it illegal to pay for sexual services, to start with, only a third thought so. When there was a prompt and people were asked whether such a law should be part of a campaign to reduce trafficking and exploitation, a clear majority of respondents supported it. That is why, despite being profoundly attracted by the Swedish approach, I felt it right to support the Home Secretary's more limited definition, which says that there should be a strict liability offence of paying for the sexual services of someone who is controlled for gain.
	However, I am anxious that the further amendments that my right hon. Friend has tabled will limit the proposed offence more than I believe she intends to. I think it certain that the exploited women of Ipswich would not be covered by the language used in amendment 47, which refers to persons subjected to "force, deception or threats". We are talking about vulnerable young women whose vulnerability is exploited, sometimes with violence, but sometimes with profound emotional blackmail and with psychological pressure and force. If we are to keep to the original intention of the Bill, it is essential that we ensure that the—I think inadvertent—over-narrowing that is inherent in the Government's amendments is overcome.
	That is why I have proposed amendments to the Government's amendments. In doing so, I have used language from other legislation. Although there are profound disagreements between the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and me, for example, everybody in the House is absolutely united in wanting to protect women who are controlled, exploited, deceived, psychologically threatened and so on. My amendments, which use language drawn from the UN protocol on trafficking and from our legislation on forced marriages, would have the effect of including all the persons whom we wish to include. However, my amendments would do that without causing the problem caused by the original language, whereby, for example, a maid or a landlord could be described as controlling a prostitute or woman for gain. I always denied that that problem, which is portrayed as a common one, existed, but one has to face it when one has lost an argument.
	The language that I have included says, first, that force should include psychological threats. That is language drawn straight from the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007. Secondly, I have referred to the exploitation of a person's vulnerability. That language is drawn from article 3 of the UN protocol on trafficking, which says:
	"'Trafficking in persons' shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force"—
	that is similar language to the Home Secretary's amendment 47—
	"or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception"—
	again, that phrase is used in the Home Secretary's amendment—
	"of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person".
	In fact, my amendments are still narrower than the international definition of trafficking. Nevertheless, I believe that they incorporate the fundamental issues.
	I have talked to Home Office Ministers about that. I think that we are on the same page, but we need to start writing on it. Let us be clear: we are talking about an offence that will be tried in the magistrates court. It rightly carries a low penalty, and the reason is that the aim is to deter demand and ensure that those who would seek to pay an exploited woman for sex should obey the rule for any buyer anywhere: caveat emptor—buyer beware—and take care. For example, if one of our constituents came to us and said, "I bought this bottle of perfume from a table outside the shops, but it doesn't smell of anything, even though it says 'Dior' on the label," we would all be inclined to say, "Well, you have avoided the protection that you might have had if you'd gone into Debenhams and bought your perfume from there." The situation that we are talking about is exactly the same.

David Ruffley: It is important to put on record on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition that the trafficking and exploitation of women and children is a vile and disgusting trade, and we can all agree that the Bill tries to tackle it more effectively. The question is the means that we should use. I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak—in retrospect, I think it might have been a good idea to have two days for Report—so I shall quickly state Her Majesty's Opposition's view on two points.
	First, there has been a great deal of debate on the definition of "controlled for gain". Many of us thought that the definition in the original drafting was too broad and would not successfully target those who had been trafficked. Paradoxically, it might have caught many of those who assisted prostitutes in their trade. Government amendments 46 to 48 seek to narrow the original broad wording, and the Government are to be congratulated on that attempt. However, we believe that the language in new clause 25 is more appropriate, for the simple reason that it tracks the language relating to trafficking that is used in the Palermo protocol, which states:
	"'Trafficking in persons' shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation."
	That definition is included in new clause 25.
	My second point relates to strict liability. It is important that people listening to the debate understand why we are wary and sceptical about this issue, and why we do not support the Government's importation of strict liability into the offences in clauses 13 and 14. We are not going soft on the horrible exploitation of vulnerable young women and children in any shape or form, but we do have a concern about the nature of strict liability offences generally. That concern has been put across rather well by Liberty, which has stated that such offences
	"have traditionally been enacted in the regulatory sphere or for fairly minor offences where it is obvious that an offence has been committed. The strict liability standard is inappropriate where a person is unable to ascertain whether what they are doing is unlawful."
	The proposed offence will apply whether or not a person knows that a prostitute is being controlled for gain or trafficked.
	Liberty went on to state a point of principle:
	"We are not aware of any other criminal offence of this nature where the strict liability standard applies allowing no prospect of a defence. It is worrying that such a move is being made here and it would be extremely concerning if this approach were to be extended."
	That is our concern, too. Is this a slippery slope? Does it represent the thin end of the wedge? We are going into territory here that would be best avoided.

Lynda Waltho: Many of us have had problems with lap-dancing clubs in our constituencies. The arguments were well rehearsed at length in Committee, so I will not go over them again. I would like to speak to amendments 194, 199 and Government amendment 54.
	We have had trouble in our constituencies because lap-dancing clubs are currently licensed solely under the Licensing Act 2003. Those clubs share the same licences as cafés and karaoke bars and since the 2003 Act it has become very much easier for lap-dancing clubs to obtain a licence and far more difficult for our communities to have a say. Local authorities are also prevented from putting in place vital controls to govern how many licences can be granted in an area and whether private booths should be permitted.
	Industry mapping has shown that new lap-dancing venues are opening on a nearly weekly basis and legal advice has shown that concerns relating to gender equality cannot be raised by local authorities or residents during the licensing process. This places local authorities in direct breach of their duties under the gender equality duty, which came into force in 2007.
	I applaud the Government's response to this issue, but they have gone only so far. I think that the Bill is seriously undermined by the fact that the proposed sexual encounter venue category is optional and that venues where lap dancing is provided less than once a month are exempt from the category. In other words, the SEV licensing category is optional. Local authorities will not have to adopt it, although universal application has recently been advocated by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, following a lengthy review of the Licensing Act 2003.
	It is crucial that we adopt the SEV category because it will guarantee local communities a voice. The current optional arrangement means that our communities will be deprived of that voice, so they are not guaranteed a greater say in the licensing of lap-dancing clubs because the outcome will depend on whether the local authority in question chooses to adopt that option.

Lynda Waltho: They ought to welcome it, but of course they do not, because they prefer an uneven mixture of provision enabling them to exploit loopholes. Their industry has a history of exploiting loopholes and gaining as a result, and I do not expect their approach to change.
	In its current form, the Bill exempts premises that provide lap dancing less frequently than once a month from requiring a sex encounter venue licence. Removal of that exemption is crucial, because we need to prevent the growth of lap dancing sub-markets. The proposed exemption will exclude a large number of premises that hold lap-dancing nights provided by lap-dancing agencies that take bookings in a range of public houses, bars and hotel venues. That sub-market is likely to grow in the light of such an exemption, especially in the context of falling alcohol revenue during the economic recession.
	That is demonstrated by the recent case of the White Hart lap-dancing application in Lewisham, in London. A landlord stated:
	"lap dancers are the sole salvation for my struggling pub".
	Mapping of the lap-dancing industry between May and November 2008 revealed that a new lap-dancing venue opened, on average, every week during that period. Half those openings were in public houses or bars which now provide specialist lap-dancing nights.
	We can prevent additional burdens from being placed on local authorities. The frequency-based exemption will increase the workload of local authorities, which will face higher enforcement costs in order to ensure that venues do not host lap-dancing events more than 11 times a year. That will place further financial pressure on authorities that are struggling now to recoup existing licensing costs through low premises licence fees.
	I believe that the new clauses and amendments will add to what the Government have already done. I note and welcome Government amendment 54, which attempts to address the possible abuse of the TEN system, but I do not believe that it is strong enough.

John McDonnell: In fact, in the consultations the Government undertook, the view expressed time and again in various representations was that punitive measures actually make matters worse. It did not help that the Government did not publish the 67 responses to their consultation—a vast proportion of which opposed their proposals on criminalisation. As we learned from Ipswich, the overall priority is the need for safety. Anything that undermines the safety of sex workers should be avoided.
	On new clause 4, I endorse the assertion made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that we are talking about children who are victims. Almost every children's agency with which we have had discussions has said that we need to ensure that there is decriminalisation. Anything that increases the stigma for children and prevents them from coming forward will undermine their ability to seek protection and security.
	Turning to new clauses 37 and 38, we have to recognise that women work together in brothels for safety reasons. My new clause would simply bring into legislation what Ministers were arguing for only a few years ago: to recognise that where two women come together, with a maid or madam—however we describe her—they should not be prosecuted under legislation relating to brothels. When we undertook our consultation, the English Collective of Prostitutes provided their analysis showing that it is 10 times safer for women to work in a brothel than to work on the street. As was mentioned earlier, small brothels often involve people working co-operatively to ensure their safety.
	In 2005, when my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was a Home Office Minister, she announced that two women should be able to work together from premises, yet that idea has been dropped and we are now introducing relatively punitive measures. In 2006, the Home Office acknowledged that—I quote from an article in  The Times—
	"the present definition of brothel ran counter to advice that, in the interests of safety, women should not sell sex alone."
	In recent months, the RCN has also debated the fact that nurses and health workers who work with sex workers are fearful for the safety of women who work on the street and are urging the Government to reconsider. At that time, the Government and others were considering four women working together. I am willing to accept a compromise of two women if that would increase their safety. The reality of the sex trade in this country is that women are working together to provide one another with safety and security.
	Mention has been made of New Zealand, where a law makes a distinction between small, collectively run brothels of up to four people working together and larger brothels, which must be licensed. All the reports from New Zealand have said that the new legislation has increased the safety and security of women by enabling them to work together in that way.
	Some of the information that we have managed to glean suggests that prosecutions for keeping a brothel used for prostitution have been increasing. In 2004, there were only three such prosecutions; in 2007—the latest figures that we could extract—there were 41. So the increasing pressure that is being put on women working together in brothels is forcing women on to the streets and into insecure and unsafe conditions.
	One of the reasons police harassment of brothels and sex workers has increased is, unfortunately, the incentive provided by the proceeds of crime legislation, whereby 25 per cent. of any assets confiscated during a raid on a brothel goes towards the police, 25 per cent. goes towards the Crown Prosecution Service and the Inland Revenue takes the rest. That is almost like the Government and the police living off immoral earnings. No wonder that there is an incentive to increase the number of raids on brothels.
	What we are asking for in the new clause is simply a recognition of the reality that women will continue to work in the sex trade. If they do, they should be kept as safe as possible, and one way of doing so is to enable them to work in small numbers in brothels, where they can work co-operatively and therefore avoid the threat of being out on the street.
	There are further amendments in my name. The Government are trying to introduce legislation whereby someone who is found in the same place twice in three months can be prosecuted for loitering or soliciting. I do not believe that something that happens twice in three months can be construed as persistent behaviour. We should reduce the period, and in amendment 6, I suggest using the phrase "twice in one week"—otherwise, we will draw more people into the criminal prosecution process, and they will therefore be more unsafe if they work in that way.
	In amendment 7, I refer back to the debate that we had on previous legislation when a system of penalties was introduced whereby a person goes before a court, is given an order and placed before a supervisor. In all the discussions that we have had with NAPO—the trade union that represents the supervisors, given that the Government inform us that they will be appointed by the probation service—it has told us that the resources and trained staff are not available. In fact, the probation service is being cut back at the moment, as we learned from a seminar today. Therefore, the staffing is not available.
	If such people, who lead extremely chaotic lives, do not attend a series of three interviews, they will be placed back before the courts. We are told today that that will be done as soon as practicable. We have been given such assurances on other new laws and crimes, and the phrase "as soon as practicable" can mean that someone is detained at least overnight. Our fear is that someone could be detained for up to 72 hours. That would have a devastating effect not only on individuals, but on their families. Many of them have children who need to be cared for. Therefore, my view is that that provision will render itself unworkable, while having a deleterious impact on the women themselves and on their families. It will be a way to intimidate women even further and undermine their ability to get off the game.

'(1) The Street Offences Act 1959 (c. 57) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) of section 1, after "prostitute", insert "aged 18 or over"'.— (Dr. Harris.)
	 Brought up
	 Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	 The House divided: Ayes 64, Noes 286.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) have assiduously pushed that point. As we have already said today, there may well be an opportunity in proposals that are now being considered—not least those of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee—for a greater role for councillors in lobbying, particularly against temporary event notices. I can certainly give her a commitment that we will continue to consider, as the Bill progresses in another place, how we can ensure that the public have a meaningful say, even when temporary event notices have led to an exemption.
	We expect much of our police, so we must ensure that they have the tools to keep us safe, to catch the guilty and to clear the innocent. That includes our world-leading use of DNA. Some have argued today that we should delay making the proposed changes. I do not believe that we should. Following the consultation, we will be in a position to move quickly, not only to meet our commitment to the European Court, but to ensure a fair, balanced and proportionate response to the difficulties of balancing the rights of the individual with the rights of society to protect itself from murderers, rapists and other criminals.
	As the Bill has progressed through this House, I have been pleased that we have acted quickly in providing for new powers to control gang members. I have seen the good work of the police and their partners in places such Birmingham in using every method that they can to protect their communities from gang violence. We owe it to them to find a way through difficult legal territory, as we are doing in this Bill. With stronger powers to tackle problem drinking and new powers to deal with sex offenders, we are learning from what has worked in tackling antisocial behaviour and protecting the vulnerable, and building on that where needed.
	However, in some areas of the Bill we are taking a radical new approach, setting a new path to tackle social issues that have been the subject of debate for years, if not centuries. As we have heard today, prostitution can not only blight communities, but be a terrible trap for the most vulnerable in our society. That is why the Bill contains provisions to tackle the most exploitative elements of prostitution. Placing a new responsibility on those who pay for sex is a radical shift in policy in this country. It is vital that we get it right, and that is why we have undertaken today to continue our discussions, including those in another place, on how we get the definition right.

Christopher Huhne: This is a mixed bag of a Bill. We have seen it passing like the proverbial bus, loaded with the various parcels that the Government have seen fit to put on it. We certainly welcome some of its provisions, including those on the extension of foreign travel orders for sex offenders, which seem proportionate and sensible. We support the Government on that issue. New clause 22, which amends the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in relation to penalties for encrypted data involving indecent images of children, is also to be welcomed as useful for tackling the terrible crime of child pornography. The new sex encounter establishment licensing regime is also a useful development that we welcome. It will allow lap-dancing premises to be considered as such for licensing purposes, which will allow local authorities to make decisions based on their own situations, which we very much welcome.
	Against the positive aspects of this portmanteau Bill, however, we must set a number of real problems. The Government are proposing to address the S and Marper judgment on the DNA database in the wrong way and by using the wrong principles. They are the wrong principles because the proposal they have brought forward seriously questions the long-standing commitment of our judicial system to the principle that everyone should be presumed innocent until they are proven to be guilty; and it is the wrong way because the Government propose to use secondary legislation—statutory instruments—for a change that is of such significance and controversy that it should be properly debated on the Floor of the House and implemented through primary legislation. The precedent is provided in the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008, which was a response to another court judgment. There is absolutely no reason for the Government to go ahead in the manner they are suggesting.
	There are also missed opportunities in the Bill, particularly on police reform. My party has long been committed to putting more police on the beat and to an increase in police officers. We are still an under-policed society, in comparison with other western democracies, but even more importantly, we are a society for which policing could be much more effective than it is. The discrepancies between the best performing and the worst performing police forces are enormous, yet there is no suggestion in the Bill to allow police authorities to pressure forces that are underperforming to reach best practice.
	We need real police reform and a move towards real local accountability—not elected sheriffs, on the model proposed by the Conservative Front-Bench team, because that would not adequately represent minorities in important parts of the country. If we are going to get better policing, what we need are directly elected and accountable police authorities. Yes, there is a cross-party consensus on dealing with the issue of police bureaucracy, but let us not disguise the fact that there is a massive difference, for example, between the effectiveness of the best performing police force in North Yorkshire, with a 67 per cent. clear-up rate of violent crime, and the 36 per cent. for the Metropolitan police. We have to find ways of improving police performance towards best practice. That, I am afraid, is a opportunity missed in the Bill.
	I believe that the measures personally championed by the Home Secretary on sex offences and prostitution are misguided. They are misguided because they introduce something that the House should always set its face against: a strict liability offence. There are many basic principles of legislation that we abandon at our peril. One is obviously retrospection, but another is the strict liability offence. The reason is simply that people do not know when they are committing a strict liability offence; and if they do not know, anybody deciding whether that offence has been committed—whether it be a magistrate or a more serious court—will regard the offence as unfair.
	What we always see with strict liability offences of the sort in the Bill is that the penalties are absolutely puny. Why? It is precisely because of the unfairness of the original offence. That is why I very much hope that when the other place considers our deliberation on the Bill and reflect on how it has been hammered through this Chamber with many parts completely unconsidered, it will amend it and do its absolute worst.
	What we have seen is a Bill that has some good elements, but others that are frankly against many of the fundamental principles that this House ought to hold dear. We have heard all the usual tough talk, rather than tough action, from the Government about tackling crime, and we have seen a failure to get to grips with some of the real problems of fighting crime in this country—notably, police reform and police accountability. I very much hope that our colleagues in the other place will look at the record of our deliberations—outrageously truncated as they have been by the timetable motion pushed through earlier today—and then very substantially amend the provisions. On that basis, we will not press for a Division, but we will hope for a very substantial degree of amendment in the other place.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Traffic Noise (M6)

Hugo Swire: This year and next year will see South West Water investing yet another £10.5 million in its "clean sweep" project and although the price rises that it has submitted to Ofwat for the forthcoming price review are lower than those of any other company, customers in the south-west will still be paying the highest bills in the country.
	Despite the fact that the flooding of 2008 affected water cleanliness, 97.8 per cent. compliance with the EC water directive's mandatory standards for bathing waters was still achieved. However, this still represents only 79.8 per cent. of the more stringent guideline standards, which indicate excellent bathing water. The Environment Agency expects water companies to progress projects to meet EU directives and has set out a national environmental programme—a programme of actions for environmental improvements that water companies should undertake to meet their environmental obligations. Indeed, in November 2007, the then Minister for the Environment, the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), stated:
	"We must go further, to prepare for the more stringent bathing water quality standards which come into effect by 2015."
	Does the Minister suggest that South West Water prices would increase to achieve that?
	The current bathing water directive will be repealed in 2013 by the EC water framework directive. The cost of delivering the water framework directive is not yet understood, although it is widely anticipated that there will be a need for further major capital investment by water companies both within this coming pricing period and subsequently.
	In addition to compliance with directives, we also must take into consideration changing meteorological circumstances. Climate change is becoming an increasing concern and one that must be taken into account when formulating future policies. During the summer of 2008, large parts of our region had 150 per cent. more rainfall than normal. The rain was also more constant, as opposed to coming in short, intense storms. That meant that the ground was saturated for longer periods, causing more urban run-off and agricultural pollution in streams and rivers. That presented a significant challenge to South West Water in protecting bathing water quality around the peninsula. Residents of the south-west alone cannot be expected to continue to pay for the upkeep of these beaches if maintaining our environment becomes more difficult and more expensive.
	The Government have certainly given some clear indications that they wish to see progress towards a time when all households are metered. Figures from the Environment Agency show that homes in the region with water meters consume as much as 30 litres of water per person per day less than those without meters. Indeed, homes with water meters in the South West Water area pay an average of £397 a year, whereas those without a meter have average bills of £686. More than 60 per cent. of homes and businesses in the South West Water area have their water supply metered, and South West Water has said that 70 per cent. of homes in the region will be on water meters by 2010 and 82 per cent. will be by 2015. Although that may play a part in reducing costs, if those in the south-west continue to have to pay indirectly for ever- more stringent EU directives on bathing water for the enjoyment of others, there will continue to be an injustice. Surely the Minister would agree on that point.
	Ministers gave some hope that this blatant and outrageous inequality would be addressed when they announced the Walker review into water charging earlier last year. The review is examining the current system of charging households for water and sewerage services, assessing the effectiveness and fairness of current and alternative methods of charging while looking at social, economic and environmental concerns. I understand that Anna Walker has said that she is committed to understanding people's concerns over rocketing charges, particularly in the current economic climate. I would hope that she pays particular attention to the south-west, where residents have been facing extortionate charges long before the recession began.
	A ministerial statement that accompanied the Government's new water strategy for England, "Future Water", which announced the review, stated:
	"Over the last two decades we have made great improvements to water quality in the environment."—[ Official Report, 7 February 2008; Vol. 471, c. 80WS.]
	Although that is indeed an achievement, it must not be forgotten that the majority of the burden of achieving that has been borne by the water customers of the south-west.
	In the Walker review's call for evidence document, it is apparent that during consultations the view emerged by a very considerable margin that usage was the fairest way to charge for water. Is that an opinion that the Minister shares or does he believe that it is acceptable for residents of the south-west to pay extra? Many respondents in the south-west resent how much they are paying for their water services. Indeed, the document states:
	"Questions of affordability appear to have been most acute in regions where water bills are relatively high and incomes relatively low, such as the South West and Wales."
	The original review timetable stated that an interim report was due in spring, with a final report to be published later this year. Now, however, owing to the election purdah period, there is no way that even an interim report will appear until after 4 June.
	In November 2009, Ofwat is to finalise the new limits on prices for the period 2010 to 2015. A tight, difficult time scale would be required were Ofwat to be able to take the Walker review into account. The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), who has responsibility for farming and the environment, has stated that
	"the Walker review will be significant in informing us how to take forward our policies on metering and charging, so we await Anna Walker's findings with interest."—[ Official Report, 6 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 344.]
	Will the Under-Secretary confirm that Ofwat's pricing review will be able to take the Walker review's findings into account, or will the review simply prove to be a pointless exercise that will offer no substantial help to people in the south-west?
	The consultation process associated with the Walker review has certainly proved useful in that a wide range of opinions on the matter have been heard. In particular, at a water charging review workshop in London on 17 December 2008, there was a feeling that the cost of environmental benefits and requirements should be separated from water charging. If those costs were stripped out, the differences between levels of water charges in different parts of the country would be much less. Does the Minister agree that that would be a more effective and fairer means of water charging?
	I advocate that the west country's popular beaches should be treated as the national asset that they are, paid for by the nation. National assets such as national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, sites of special scientific interest and UNESCO world heritage sites, such as the Jurassic coast in my constituency and that of the my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), benefit UK tourism and the economy while visitors from all over the country benefit from our beautiful beaches and clean water. It is simply wrong that only 3 per cent. of the population should have to pay to maintain that.
	Government intervention is required in order to equitably and effectively address the problem. The Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), has himself criticised that disparity and pledged to take action to address it. While holidaying in north Cornwall last July, he said,
	"I understand the unfairness that people feel in the South West that they are paying a lot of money so that there are clean beaches for people like me from Oxfordshire to come and play on."
	In fact, the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), has confirmed to me personally that such is the importance of the issue that he is urgently looking into redressing it. He has said:
	"In some cases, where big investment decisions need to be made which might impact heavily on one small area but might provide wider benefits, we need to look at the way in which they are financed."
	That, therefore, is exactly what I have been doing.
	The residents of the south-west have paid too high a price for too long and I am proposing a radical new solution that is workable, effective and fair, and whereby environmental standards are maintained, if not improved, but whereby a small number of customers are no longer penalised. Projects that are deemed to be of national importance must not be paid for by one small group of people; instead, that factor must be stripped out of charges. I am proposing an environmental equalisation mechanism that would equably spread the burden of the upkeep of our environment. If the "clean sweep" burden were to be shared equally among all English customers, the South West Water average bill could be reduced by approximately £75 to £379 while customers in other regions would see their bills increase by just a negligible sum.
	At £379, South West Water's charges would be at their lowest level since 2002, in real terms. On the basis of the company's final business plan submission, its bills in 2015 would be the lowest since 1999 in real terms. With such a scheme we will have achieved what the people of the south-west have wanted and deserved for so long, finally solving a problem over which the Government have dithered and delayed.
	The South West Water area spans 4,300 square miles and has the highest ratio of coastline to land of any region served by any water company in England and Wales. Change is required to address the clear disparity in water charges, and that change should require the whole country to share the burden of upkeep of a national treasure that is available for all to enjoy.
	We have lived with that inequality for far too long. In the remaining time left to the Government, they could still redress it. If not, an incoming Conservative Government will do so.